Comments on: Crunchbang and Archbanghttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/
K.Mandla's blog of Linux experiencesMon, 23 Mar 2015 16:53:15 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: rikhttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-48911
Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:06:13 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-48911Since Crunchie went to Debian(thankfully !), I like them both now again.
If you like Arch Linux, then it’s AB! If u like Debian/GNU then it’s CB!

Another comparison would be:

Arch, is BSD-ish in its more “standard” system/config file(s) simplicity, aka KISS, and less is more. Heck, I might even say elegant, just because of that desirable feature alone.
Hence, it is more CLI-intuitive and friendly, but less GUI-friendly system-wise.

Debian, is more obviously GNU-ish in its approach, which again, depends on your palette.
Hence, Deb is more GUI-friendly system-wise, but less CLI-friendly, than Arch.

Either way, they’ll both get you there, be it server/client, …

]]>By: Archattackhttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-48063
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:10:41 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-48063If you are using Unetbootin to install Archbang then you MUST give the usb drive the label: ARCH_201102 (or whatever release you will be using)

Now, it’ll boot fine.

]]>By: willxtremehttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42999
Mon, 03 May 2010 18:10:07 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42999Instead of using unetbootin, run this command in a terminal as root in the directory where you saved the iso
dd if=archbang*.iso of=/dev/your-usb-drive bs=8M

run “fdisk -l” to list all your drives & partitions to find which one is your usb (often /dev/sdb):D

]]>By: stevehttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42688
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:58:15 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42688Also VMs are a great way to test stuff out without the risk of breaking anything. I’ll admit there’s fun in taking risks, but it’s no fun being left without a workable machine…
]]>By: stevehttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42687
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:29:50 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42687All the same things could be said about apt, and that is with 4 years of continuous use. And apt does have a front end in synaptic.

Hardly a convincing argument.

]]>By: Remyhttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42676
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:08:46 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42676How did you get 32.000 songs on a netbook? :P
]]>By: Artopalhttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42670
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:00:50 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42670Archbang didn’t work for me with unetbootin (not having an optical drive on my netbook, I have to boot from flash drive). Crunchbang ran good, the Xfce version consuming less RAM than the Openbox one (running the live system).

The developers made some strange app choices for my taste, but it still is a light and lean system from which to build upon, without much hassle, an optimal system for my hardware.

On the other hand, I managed to make Ubuntu Lucid consume no more than 120-140MB RAM while idle (with GNOME). I will definetely try installing Crunchbang 10 when its ready. Maybe till then will Archbang work with unetbootin. I’m intrigued about pacman.

I’ve not tried Archbang, and couldn’t get the new CrunchBang Alpha to install on my netbook.
But I have built both a Debian Squeeze and Arch install from scratch on the same system (using the same OpenBox WM, configured to mimic CrunchBang), and there’s no speed difference whatsoever. They both use round the same amount of ram, and have similar boot/shut-down times. I’m currently running a Sidux + OpenBox install on the same netbook, and am very pleased with it.

I will say that Arch has a somewhat better package management model, though. (if you know what you’re doing, that is). From what I’ve heard from the members at the CrunchBang forums, ArchBang seems to be as good as it gets when it comes to a preconfigured Arch respin, so more power to them as well.

At the end of the day, if I were to choose a *Bang variant, I’d probably go for CrunchBang again once it reaches beta or RC, since I’m just more comfortable with Apt syntax. Also because the amount of polish Cornominal (the creator of CrunchBang) seems to achieve with his distro puts any other Openbox based distro/respin to shame.

]]>By: Lithiumhttps://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42661
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:59:07 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42661I won’t discuss the “more up-to-date” or “stable” part, but I recently tried both and Crunchbang Statler was just as nippy as Archbang, and it booted a few seconds faster as well.
Debian done right (net-install and add what you want after) is just as responsive as an Arch install.
]]>By: zoev9https://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42660
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:10:53 +0000http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/crunchbang-and-archbang/#comment-42660thank you. that pretty much sums it up
]]>